Ex Parte Bufkin
Decision Date | 10 February 2006 |
Docket Number | 1041890. |
Citation | 936 So.2d 1042 |
Parties | Ex parte John BUFKIN. (In re George Roberts v. John Bufkin and Byron Williamson). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rick A. Howard and Jason D. Darneille of Nix Holtsford Gilliland Higgins & Hitson, P.C., Montgomery, for petitioner.
Robert G. Wilson of Wilson & Scott, LLC, Fort Payne, for respondent.
George Roberts sued John Bufkin and Byron Williamson in the Sumter Circuit Court. Bufkin filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The trial court denied that motion, and Bufkin filed this petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny the petition.
According to Roberts's complaint, on September 12, 2003, he was permanently injured and his property damaged when Bufkin backed a truck over the motorcycle Roberts was riding. The accident occurred in Fayetteville, Tennessee. Bufkin is a resident of Mississippi. Williamson, who owns the truck Bufkin was driving at the time of the accident and who is also a defendant in the case, is a resident of Alabama, as is Roberts, the plaintiff. Williamson was not present at the time of the accident. Roberts alleged negligence and wantonness on the part of Bufkin and negligent entrustment on the part of Williamson.
Bufkin filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Williamson filed a motion for a summary judgment, setting forth defenses to Roberts's negligent-entrustment claim. The trial court denied Bufkin's motion to dismiss and reserved judgment on Williamson's summary-judgment motion until discovery was completed. Bufkin then filed this petition for the writ of mandamus in which he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
"
Ex parte McWilliams, 812 So.2d 318, 321 (Ala.2001). "An appellate court considers de novo a trial court's judgment on a party's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction." Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So.2d 726, 729 (Ala.2002).
Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So.2d 226, 229-30 (Ala.2004).
"A state has jurisdiction over a person or corporation so long as its `long-arm statute' reaches the person or corporation and the state's jurisdiction comports with the requirements of due process." Leithead v. Banyan Corp., 926 So.2d 1025, 1029-30 (Ala.2005). Rule 4.2, Ala. R. Civ. P., Alabama's long-arm rule, provides:
"An appropriate basis exists for service of process outside of this state upon a person or entity in any action in this state when the person or entity has such contacts with this state that the prosecution of the action against the person or entity in this state is not inconsistent with the constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States ...."
Therefore, Alabama's long-arm rule extends the personal jurisdiction of Alabama courts to the limits of due process permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 13, Constitution of Alabama of 1901. See Ex parte Alloy Wheels Int'l, 882 So.2d 819, 822 (Ala.2003).
"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a forum state to subject a nonresident defendant to jurisdiction in its courts only when that defendant has had `minimum contacts' with the forum state." Ex parte Full Circle Distrib., L.L.C., 883 So.2d 638, 644 (Ala. 2003) (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)).
Roberts argues that the trial court has specific personal jurisdiction over Bufkin, focusing on Bufkin's contacts with Alabama that are related to the underlying cause of action. According to Roberts's complaint, "[a]t the time of the accident complained of, [Bufkin] was the agent, servant or employee of [Williamson] and/or was involved in a joint venture with [Williamson]." According to Williamson's summary-judgment motion, Williamson's truck, being driven by Bufkin at the time of the accident involving Roberts, had a horse trailer attached to it when Bufkin backed over Roberts's motorcycle, a fact Bufkin admits in his reply brief. In an affidavit submitted to the trial court, Bufkin concedes that, at some point in September 2003, the month in which the accident occurred in Tennessee, Bufkin was present in Alabama.
We have recently reiterated the principle that "" Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 876 So.2d 459, 463 (Ala.2003) (quoting Ex parte Dill, Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, P.C., 866 So.2d 519, 525 (Ala. 2003)). While affidavits filed by Bufkin and Williamson do not contradict the allegations of agency contained in Roberts's complaint, based on the limited facts before us on this petition for the writ of mandamus, we cannot determine the nature of the alleged business relationship between Bufkin and Williamson; therefore, we cannot conclude that Bufkin's contacts with Alabama are such that the trial court could have found, at this stage of the proceeding, that Roberts had established that that court had personal jurisdiction over Bufkin. However, if Roberts is entitled to conduct further discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, our inability to find personal jurisdiction based on the facts presently before us does not warrant our issuing the writ of mandamus and instructing the trial court to dismiss all claims against Bufkin.
Roberts contends that before a final determination is made regarding personal jurisdiction as to Bufkin, Roberts is entitled to limited discovery to investigate facts relevant to that issue. Roberts points out that Bufkin has refused to respond to discovery requests, causing Roberts to file a motion to compel discovery. There is no indication that the trial court has ruled on Roberts's motion to compel. Roberts contends that, while he believes that Bufkin and Williamson were involved in some sort of business relationship at the time of the accident, which is the reason Bufkin was driving Williamson's truck, he is unable to confirm that belief because Bufkin has refused to respond to Roberts's discovery...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
P.B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage (In re Alamo Title Co.), 1111541.
... 128 So.3d 700 EX PARTE ALAMO TITLE COMPANY. (In re P.B. Surf, Ltd. v. Guy A. Savage et al.). 1111541. Supreme Court of Alabama. March 15, 2013. Rehearing Denied May 17, ... Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Ala.2006). “ ‘An appellate court considers de novo a trial court's judgment on a party's motion to dismiss for lack of ... ...
-
Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. v. Thompson I.G., LLC (Ex parte Edgetech I.G., Inc.)
... ... Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 63 (3d Cir.1984) ). Ex parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So.2d 226, 22930 (Ala.2004). Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042, 104445 (Ala.2006). Ex parte DBI, Inc., 23 So.3d 635, 64243 (Ala.2009). Discussion Edgetech argues that the trial court erroneously denied its motion to dismiss because, it says, Tiffin did not satisfy its burden of proving that the trial court had in personam jurisdiction over ... ...
-
Pardue v. Club at 219 Dauphin, Inc. (Ex parte Int'l Creative Mgmt. Partners, LLC)
... ... 1114petitioned this Court for mandamus review of the circuit court's order denying its motion to dismiss.Standard of Review "We recently addressed the standard of review in a proceeding challenging the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042, 104445 (Ala. 2006) :" " The writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be "issued only when there is: 1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) the lack of ... ...
-
Garrison Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. No. 1 Steel Prods., Inc. (Ex parte No. 1 Steel Prods., Inc.) , 1091781.
... ... An appellate court considers de novo a trial court's judgment on a party's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Elliott v. Van Kleef, 830 So.2d 726, 729 (Ala.2002). Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042, 104445 (Ala.2006). III. In Ex parte Excelsior Financial, Inc., 42 So.3d 96 (Ala.2010), we reviewed the due-process concerns that govern a court's decision whether to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state party, stating: The extent of an Alabama court's personal ... ...
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...review in a proceeding challenging the trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So. 2d 1042, 1044-45 (Ala. 2006): "'"'The writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be "issued only when there is: 1) a clear legal rig......
-
Attributing One Party's Contacts With the Forum State to Another: Conspiracy Jurisdiction in Alabama
...avoided substantive review in favor of procedural nuance. See Ex parte United Ins. Cos., 936 So.2d 1049 (Ala. 2006); Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042 (Ala. 2006); and Ex parte McInnis, 820 So.2d 795 (Ala. 2001). In fact, the Reindel court also declined "to define the contours of conspiracy j......
-
Obtaining Personal Jurisdiction: a Deceptively Complex Stage of Litigation
...Id. at 54.121. Ex parte Gudel AG, 183 So.3d 147, 155 (Ala.2015); Ex parte Merches, 151 So.3d 1075, 1078 (Ala.2014).122. Ex parte Bufkin, 936 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Ala.2006)123. Id.124. See Ex parte Troncalli Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., 876 So.2d 459, 467-68 (Ala.2003).125. Id. at 468 (emphas......